This is really an interesting read:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/arc ... 47579.html
I found it after I did my previous post on this thread.
After I read this from an intelligent person, I will still stick with 9mm...I own guns in 10mm and in .45ACP, but, I absolutely can't stand .40SW.
On the thread above from TFL, a MD comments on rounds, etc...A good read.
jdthaddeus11-27-2000, 03:13 PM
The Dr has some good info, but makes the same mistake that many do when talking handgun ballistics: we are not talking about killing, we are talking about STOPPING.
What the patient is like in the OR has no relation to what he did before he got there. That is a flaw that (as a fan of Fackler I can say) that Fackler makes. A lot happens before the BG gets to the OR and the morgue. As a scientist, I do not fully respect Sanow's studies, but I do respect him for trying to find out what happens on the street. The street seems to show that energy dump does induce a person to cease their actions faster ("stop"). A STOP is what matters, not a kill. The 9mm has been proven time and again by many studies to STOP as well as the .45. Sanow wanted to demonstrate the stopping ability of the rounds, and found that the .45 is a very poor energy displacer. The 9mm not only makes a bigger hole, but displaces more energy into the tissue, with potential to be more damage. The .45 was never seen to tumble in the test (PLEASE everyone go read the damn thread or the article and don't just hipshot comment on what you read here).
Personally, with my experience in medicine, I sure don't want to have to wait for someone to bleed out for them to stop coming at me. Does everyone here know how long it takes for a person to bleed into incapacitation?
Hollowpoints do NOT work better because they make bigger holes, they work better because they dump energy faster (eg .357 Magmum). At least, that is what Sanow is saying. Just read the article everyone, rather than going off of a few lines you see here. Most of the article is posted in the thread by yours truly.
As a person in the medical field myselfs, having seen numerous GSW of all calibers, as well as doing a lot of studying, I have NOT seen it true that any caliber stops or kills any better than the other. I have seen guys that took a whole magazine of .45 to all parts of his body and felt it was no more than a nuisance. He never lost consciousness. I have shot animals with both and seen no difference in effectivness or damage. Sometimes 9mm fails miserably. Sometimes .45 fails miserably. Somewhere around here there is the account of the guy that took around 27 rounds of .45 and kept coming. Both rounds fail miserably on occasion. Shot placement is what stops, and shot placement is what kills. A little luck helps too.
I am not a Sanow fan, but no one can argue with the effectiveness of the .357 Magnum. That round is based wholly on energy dump, and it is a reknownwed stopper on the street. The energy dump from a high power handgun round is likened to a kick in the guts, (inside your guts where muscle rigidity cannot defend against it), and that is why people stop more often from energy dump. Without energy dump, many people say that they never even felt getting shot (for instance, a slow arrow dumps very little energy whereas a .45 hitting the chest and stopping instantly just dumped ALL of its energy instantly). I want the BG to FEEL it when he gets hit. Most modern 9mm +P loads have the same energy dump as a factory loaded .357 out of a medium length barrel, and my local LEOs as well as the INS and others claim that the 9mm works great in many many real shootings.
And with all of this, the argument goes round and round.
Just read the article with an open mind, it is quite interesting.
The most maddening thing about this thread is that it appears that the far majority have not even read the article, and few with an open mind.
Here is where I come from with all of this: It is tough to distinctly say these days that the .45 is any better than the 9mm, and in some cases the 9mm is said to be better. We have hundreds and thousands of shootings, many detailed studies and experts and few to none of them can prove that a .45 stops any better than a 9mm. On the street, time and time again, they work the same; they both often fail miserably and both succeed the same. Now, if they are so similar in performance that it can be effectively argued that there is no difference, then I want to gun that carries 16 rounds of ammo over the one that carries 7. That is why I carry a 9mm Glock 19 right now, and maybe a .357 Sig in the future. If they all work about the same, then I want the one with the most chances to make good hits on multiple assailents (more ammo). Shot placement...good HITS...are all that matter, so I like the gun that gives me the easiest hits and the most chances.
What Sanow says on 9mm FMJ vs .45 FMJ is summed up that: 9mm tumbled EVERY TIME, and .45 NEVER tumbled due to bullet shape. Therefore the 9mm actually made a BIGGER hole! The 9mm also goes faster and therefore even when it does NOT tumble, it displaces energy faster into the target. 9mm dumped way more energy AND made a bigger hole. How can you argue with more energy dump and a bigger hole? Most people assume that, upon hollowpoint failure, a .45 is a better bet. Sanow's article shows that that is not necessarily true, and perhaps totally false.